Menu

Foreign Policy

Donald Trump has been a very unique presidential candidate, to say the least, and his uniqueness stretches all the way to his positions on foreign policy issues. His position on foreign policy involves: building a wall on US Mexico border and making Mexico pay for it, defeating ISIS, and establishing new immigration controls to boost American wages. At face value all of these ideas, except maybe building a giant wall on the southern border, may seem like good ideas. After all, boosting American wages would mean that Americans can buy more stuff, right? Well, this is actually not true.

Boosting American Incomes

Trump’s plan to boost American wages would actually hurt the US’ economy and cause American incomes to decline. The reason for this unexpected outcome is that limiting the possibilities of immigrants to gain employment means that lower wage positions will go to Americans. These Americans will demand higher pay than the formerly employed immigrants. Since business owners will be forced to pay employees higher wages, the cost of goods will increase. This means that all Americans will be paying higher prices for goods. As a result, Americans would have less discretionary income. This would lead to demand for higher cost services declining and could further lead to a decrease in employment among higher salaried careers.

Defeating ISIS

Trump’s plan to defeat ISIS is even worse than his plans to “boost American wages” and stop illegal immigration. This is because his plan to defeat ISIS is largely non-existent. The only thing it says on Trump’s website about defeating ISIS is that Trump will:

Work with allies in the Middle East and “pursue aggressive joint and coalition military operations to crush and destroy ISIS, international cooperation to cutoff their funding, expand intelligence sharing, and cyberwarfare to disrupt and disable their propaganda and recruiting.”

The big problem here is that Trump’s statement is not very specific; he does not explain how he will do any of the things he outlines. Trump claims that he isn’t being specific because he doesn’t want the enemy to know his plan, but I’m not buying this. I think Trump isn’t being specific because he does not actually have a plan to defeat ISIS, which is understandable since Trump does not have much experience, if any, in developing international policy. His experience is in business, not international politics. Additionally, if Donald Trump actually had a plan, then one would think that he would at least give a little outline or sneak peak of his plan, but he has yet to do this.

Overall, when looking at foreign policy, Trump does not seem to be well suited for the position of President of the United States of America. His foreign policies would not only hurt the US economy, but they also seem to be vague and not well thought out.

Many people may be surprised to learn that unauthorized immigration benefits the US economy. In fact, Economist Gordon H. Hanson, has explained that stopping unauthorized immigration may cause a net drain on the US economy. Unauthorized immigration benefits the US economy by providing employers with low wage labor. Low wage labor keeps the costs of producing goods down which leads to lower costs for the consumer. This means that not only are Americans able to purchase goods for lower costs, but so are foreigners. As a result, US exports are higher due to more globally competitive prices. However, if employers didn’t hire unauthorized immigrants, then the cost of production would rise, prices would increase, and exports would decline.

An example of the problems that can arise when rates of unauthorized immigration decrease can be found in the state of Arizona. Many economists agree that Arizona’s economy took a hit after the state cracked down on unauthorized immigration. However, some argue that the benefits that come with reducing unauthorized immigration, such as lower government spending on health care and education for unauthorized immigrants and the employment of more US born labor, outweighs the economic costs that accrue from cracking down on unauthorized immigration. Contrary to popular belief, research shows that this is not true.

The US Department of Agriculture (USDA) conducted a study where researchers performed simulation analysis to determine what the effects would be on the economy if the unauthorized immigrant population decreased or if the unauthorized immigrant population increased. Results showed that an increase in the unauthorized immigrant population would lead to the increased employment of unauthorized immigrants at lower wages which would lead to increases in agricultural outputs and exports. However, a decrease in the immigrant population would lead to several problems in the US economy.

USDA research results show that along with a decrease in unauthorized immigrant labor there would be a labor shortage of farmworkers by 3.4 to 5.5 percent. Long run effects of decreased immigrant labor include an increase in wages for low paying positions and a decline in aggregate income. The reasons for a decrease in aggregate income include a relative decrease in production in the long run and the redistribution of employment from higher income positions to lower income positions. The long run relative decrease in production means that production would not only decrease in the agricultural industry, it would decrease throughout the entire US economy. This would result in the reduction of incomes for higher wage positions.

Overall, the USDA found that decreasing unauthorized immigration by a significant amount would badly affect the US economy. In fact, the benefits that come from decreasing unauthorized immigration would not outweigh the negative effects that decreasing unauthorized immigration would have on the US economy. So if lawmakers want to decrease unauthorized immigration, then they must first come up with a well thought out plan on how to handle the detriments associated with decreased levels unauthorized immigration.

The US and many European countries have placed sanctions on Russia in response to Russia’s aggression in Ukraine. However, the current sanctions on Russia may actually be increasing group solidarity, the cohesiveness of the Russian population. By increasing group solidarity, sanctions on Russia are actually having unintended consequences.

According to the Pew Research Center, Russians have record high confidence in President Putin’s ability to handle international affairs, while the Russian population’s view of foreign world leaders has plummeted. There are several possible reasons for this. One possible reason is that the state-run news media in Russia may broadcast international events in a way that favors Putin and the Russian government. Another possible reason is that the Russian government has been promoting a narrative that says that the west is trying to hurt Russia.

In light of the Russian government’s narrative, sanctions may be perceived simply as a way to hurt Russia and not as a way to force Russia to move troops out of Ukraine. When the narratives of the state-run news media and Russian sanctions are combined, this results in the Russian population displaying more support for their leaders and less support for foreign world leaders. Therein solidarity is displayed. Why would I support someone that wants to harm my country? This is the question members of the Russian population are forced to ask when they are convinced by the Russian government’s narrative and see that European countries and the US placed sanctions on Russia which in turn hurt the Russian economy.

Due to the group solidarity created by sanctions and the Kremlin’s narrative, Putin may not succumb to the pressures of sanctions. This is what we have seen thus far. So far the sanctions have increased political support for Putin. Sure 73% of Russians say the economy is in poor shape, but Putin’s approval rating is 82%. His approval rating even increased during the Ukraine crisis and sanctions have failed to bring his approval rating below 80%. So sanctions are not really placing pressure on Putin. In fact, withdrawing troops from Ukraine may hurt his approval rating since it could be seen as succumbing to the wills of the nations that are trying to hurt Russia. If Putin wants to be elected, and what politician doesn’t want to be elected, then he doesn’t need to change anything he’s doing. This is true as long as solidarity in Russia is high.

As long as solidarity in Russia increases, the use of sanctions on Russia will be largely ineffective. The only way for sanctions to become effective would be for the Russian population to understand or believe that the Russian government is lying about the motives and actions of the US and other nations. This would lead to the Russian population no longer supporting President Putin.

Although news about the Ukraine war has disappeared from American news headlines, the war still rages on. According to USA Today, around 2,400 service men and women have died in the Ukrainian War. The Russian government still denies that they are supporting separatist troops in Ukraine despite evidence that shows the contrary.

As a result of Russia’s increased aggressiveness, several states, including Poland, have requested more support from NATO. NATO has responded by announcing that more troops will be deployed near the Russian border, particularly throughout Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, and Poland. According to NATO defense ministers, the increase in troops are meant to deter Russia from engaging in further conflict with its neighbors.

It will be interesting to see how Russia’s president, Vladimir Putin, will respond to the increase in NATO troops. Will he use this to fuel anti-American propaganda? Will he simply send more troops to the Russian border? Or, will he do both? Probably both.

Sending more NATO troops to the Russian border may deter Russia, but it may also heighten tensions with Russia. It seems like President Putin has been trying to show the strength of Russia by intervening in Ukraine and annexing Crimea. Sending more troops to the Russian border would allow Vladimir Putin to once again demonstrate Russia’s strength by showing that Russia can stand up to the US.

Putin may also send more troops to the Russian border to gain political points. If the citizens in Russia believe the Russian propaganda about NATO and the US, then they are likely to be fearful of an increase in NATO troops at the Russian borders. Vladimir Putin could keep high approval ratings by capitalizing on this fear. For example, if he sends more troops to the Russian border then he could tell Russians that he is protecting them from the US.

Putin could also use the increase in NATO troops to spread propaganda about how the US is threatening and bullying the Russian people. Overall, the increase in NATO troops at the Russian border is an interesting strategy that should have interesting consequences.